The problem here is that this will never be the case. People keep going on about the potential hard data, yet unless you get those 100 games over different playgroups (people always seem to ignore meta-game), you will never get this and rules will stay as they are for years to come.

I would think that the better answer is not to ignore history (voices from those that have been there and done that), and make the rules with provision to compromise rather than sticking to one's guns no matter how many people advise otherwise.

At the end of the day people interested in keeping the rules as they are will playtest. Others will develop an apathy towards it (as they feel they do not have a voice) and go play many of the other forces they do agree with or want to try. Rather than have discussions exist as a 'rubber stamp' to say they have been had, why not listen and compromise on what opinions/results from history, are being given?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I am personally willing to chang my mind if I find E&C is right about whether this spawning method is workable. I'd be able to tell within a game or two whether it works. I'd hope (and I think) the same is true of E&C. Where we (the NetEA community) run into problems is playtesting with the intent to prove one is right. It amounts to deciding the outcome beforehand and playing games to prove it, and can make a mess. When I say I want data, I mean I to try the system with as little bias as possible, and see where it takes me.

It's no more and no less than I'd expect from any playtest. Go in with what you want to test in mind, but not what you want to prove. It's something I see too often on these boards, people with something they need to prove, but no evidence to back it up, and no will to get said evidence. You don't even need a full batrep, just an impression of how what you wanted to test went.

Understand I'm not attacking anyone in specific, I've just seen too many arguments that went on for pages without any real evidence being brought to the table on either side. I've been guilty of it too. Sometimes there is a difference of opinion between people with plenty of relevent experience, as well, but the night the rules are released cannot be said to be one of those times.[/rant]

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Of course, I'm happy enough to test it a few times before making more of my issues.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Very well said.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Everything I expected, and more, from the fine group on the Tac Boards, thank you all.

I wanted to get the ball rolling on the Special Rules as quickly as possible so I am by no means saying what I have typed above is the finished product. The intent of each rule is the direction I think we should try heading in, and it is that I felt was vital. Besides I got this great group here to correct my errors, and close the holes for me

I will have more time Monday to digest all of the post fully, for now I just did a quick read to get the feel for everyones thoughts, so here are some shots in the dark from what stood out.

For the record I do not believe I was in charge three years ago, so I am unfamiliar with the mobility issue. Please enligthen me as I haven't seen it in my games.

Yes I failed to state when spawning occurs, I was intending it to be free during the end phase, and available if a formation decided to rally. Yes this does mean some formations could end up spawning twice in a single turn.

I do have a game Thursday to test the list, I will be using the above Special rules and the Onachus TO&E, because it was the one I have used and abused the most lately. Next game I am going to give Leviathin a whirl, because I really want to try it out.

We have, as I already stated, used the dead tray to keep track of which swarms had what minis in it and it wasn't a problem once players got used to it. It really wasn't as much of a book-keeping problem as I had thought it would be.

Once again all thanks for the excellent feedback,

Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

We have enlightened you; It was unplayably slow.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

@Gaunt: Ok.

@Spawning&Brood Mother:
Well Tervigons are only able to produce new Termagants. Nothing else. Dominatrices would be able to produce more complex creatures but for simplicity i woild restrict it to Tergamants and Hormagaunts.

So i would only allow Tergamants and Hormagaunts to be spawnable. Only Swarms with Synapses can spawn. Tervigons would allow a spawn-bonus to Termagants and Dominatrices to both.
For spawning i would use a Spawn Pool in the same manner as a Daemon Pool. Each Spawn Point could be used to spawn one Termagant or Hormagaunt unit.
Synapses could have a number assigned which state how many Gaunt units they can control*. You can spawn more Gaunts than this number total but any excess would be removed in the end phase and put back into the Spawn Pool.
*Non-Gaunt units (everything else which isn't a Termagant or Hormagaunt) aren't affected by this.

BTW: How does the BlackLegion armylist solve the tie-breaker issue with the Daemon Pool?

@Instinctive: It's ok. Playtest will see what will work better. "Initiative 3+ with restirctions" or "Initiative 4+" for Synapse Sawrms which have lost all Synapses

@Tunneler: Well it isn't Tyranids specific.

qMobility: Walker will just slow the game down. Keeping the Mobility ruleof Leviathan is the way to go.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Speaking as a KnightWorld player, I can attest to this. A formation of 6 Knights, moving into cover on the first move, out of cover and into cover on the second*, require 3 DT tests each, with each failure rerolled. That's 18 initial rolls for a single formation. And with a standard distribution, another 3 for rerolls.

Knights are a minimum of 75pts each, so it's not as huge a problem. But in a list that potentially has 30pt figures with Walker, and being Infantry desperately need cover, it could become incredibly numerous. You also need to factor in that Walker DOES fail. I consistently lose 2-3 models a game to Walker tests. Even if you're just going from one cover to another, with no errant moves, for every 18 models with Walker will lose one, every turn. Statistically speaking.

* That's assuming I'm reading DT tests properly. I'm interpreting 'start to move' as per Move (ie, a March is 3 Moves, so a March in DT is 3 DT tests if you continually move but don't leave the terrain piece), and that the 'or' in the text is cumulative (ie, starting in DT, doing a single move, and finishing in DT is two tests). The rules aren't completely explicit, though less so the latter, than the former.

Morgan Vening

I think it would be worthwhile to make the spawning rules work so that they 1) don't just return dead units, as this most strongly gives the feel of resurrection and 2) allow spawning of a variety of units, excluding only the biggest, to really give a feel of bugs coming out of the woodwork (and not just being born right then and there on the battlefield, which is a stretch even for Nids IMO).

If I was the AC (good thing I'm not!) I'd try out a "spawning table", something like this:
1 - X termagants
2 - Y hormagaunst
3 - Z gargoyles
4 - a ravener or two
5 - other nasty
6 - maybe an AV class bug.

Maybe expand the table from 0 to 8 or so and add the various spawning modifiers to the roll. Probably too complicated to add at this point.

Just don't have Spawning be just undead bugs or newborn termagants...

Also, carnifexes are really freaking unlikely to trip over a tree and die.

Just sayin'.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Or Raveners if they're LV in the end

_________________

Just some thoughts and questions, before play-testing.

Initiative 1+ and SR1:
Without modifiers, I suspect?

Instinctive: Just thought I should say that it "feels" right. No actions that serve a greater purpose, really. A good alternative rule to merging.

Overall feeling:
Too early to say, and it will also depend on what happens to unit stats, army list design and points' costs, but it is a major change to Tyranids. Restrictions to spawning, more blast markers gained, no expendables, no auto-retain on engagement. As several complaints concern Nids being overpowered, it might be justified. Anyway, it feels like a major move towards bringing Tyranids back into line with the others. What remains Tyranid is basically:

Pros:
spawning
gaunt cannon fodder
great CC specialists
good initiative

Cons:
low(est) strategy rating
restricted ranged shooting
restricted AA
instinctive (loss of leader - limited tactical options)

I am not sure the pros and cons add up, and I am not sure that the proposed rules will create enough of a Tyranid "feel", but playtesting will see.

I will try a couple of games against marines and guards this month, using the 9.2.1.

/Fredmans

Other cons:
slow compared to almost everybody else w/ no transports, real teleporters, aircraft transports, etc
opponent plays 'corners' and you've got an uphill struggle
can't garrison most synapse groups as the gaunts are too fast to garrison which doesn't make much sense if you think about what should garrison in a nid army
skimmers completely neutralize the 'great CC specialists' tag, try facing an Eldar army playing corners and let me know how many times you get to use the juicy 3+ cc attacks
always lose initiative which means opponents can teleport their terminators in w/ impunity knowing that they will always ALWAYS get to engage with them first

None of those are small cons by any means. The big pros nids have got are their resilience to BMs and small numbers of casualties. They aren't the best army in engagements, but they're the best at making comebacks and keeping activations going later into the game. I find my opponents often make the mistake of just distributing BMs and casualties amongst my FMs instead of totally and completely destroying them. Doing the latter often requires actively engaging weakened nid formations to obliterate the synapse creatures and hack down the rest.

_________________

Initiative - No mods for Engage or Rally?

Gaunt - I suggest just sticking with the Expendable which has become pretty standardized. The rest of the Broods will be Expendable anyway. You can add the "can't capture/contest" as an exception for particular units if need be.

Spawning - OK. I am not sure about the feel of same-swarm, but we'll see. As others noted, if unit types change the table of costs may need to become more complex.

Brood Mother - Range seems awfully long. 90cm is half the frontage of a normal board.

Instinctive - OK.

Mobility - I agree with others that dozens of difficult terrain checks is a hassle. To some extent the need for this will depend on the final results of unit types in the stats discussion, but keeping it is definitely going to simplify things regardless of the outcome.

E+C, When I was the Aide de Camp to Commissar General Yarrick I was on Hammond's World and I saw these two brunettes and a blonde being chased by a Carnifex through the woods. Well the blonde turns to the two brunettes and yells (Transmission garbled sorry for the inconvience). Damned if the blonde doesn't go ahead and do it! Sure enough it worked and the Carnifex fell dead over a fallen tree. Yarrick turns to me and says, son I want a blonde in every forest on this planet ASAP

Mobility has been added to the list.



Sorry to say Ulrik but we have tried stuff like this before.



No Fredmen my intention is to return the Nids to being as much a standard army as possible, per the games rules, it is why I set the initiative at 1+.



Carlos I really haven't had much trouble with the Eldar. I know that a lot of their army contains skimmers, but their formations are small and their hard hitters (Aspect Warriors) do have to place their feet on the ground if they want to come out and play. There are also ways to force the numerically small Eldar Army to come out to play on your terms.

Somewhere along the line here I am going to have to put up a batrep on how to deal with a corner deployment using a Horde type army. For now let us just say tactically the downsides can be overcome using just foot slogging infantry.

As for the Terminators on Teleport, you start the battle knowing the opponent is going to use them that way a simple bunch of Genestealers playing an area defense are a real cheap way to mess up a Termi deep strike.



Not at this time. I want to see if the 1+, with applicable modifiers, will be sufficient. If you all here have been down this road before (WHile I was gone) just let me know, Ok



Makes sense.



I'll be keeping a close eye on this one as it is a steep change in the game, but I still want to give it a go as it will simplify balancing the list.



90cms WAS my intention, and I am aware how large of a range it is. If it seems to go beyond the pale I will be reducing it to 30cms (60cms total)



I will be keeping a close watch on this one too for the same reason I am going to keep a close eye on spawning.



Ok.......Ok......I am already black and blue from getting beat with a stick on this one, I give up LOL

I'll try to get the Gaunt/Expendable re-written and up tonight, tommorrow at the latest.

Thanks, and Cheers all,
Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC